The Irony of Hiroshima and N. Korea

[Ani_Ibi]

"Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.

Sigh. One more time. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants.

The object of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to end the Pacific War.

Object comprises two components: behaviour and proximate intention.

The behaviour was bombing with atomic ordinance.

The proximate intention was to neutralize Japanese command, materiels, and troop concentration.

Harming the civilian population was not the proximate intention; it was the circumstantial or indirect intention.

Harming the civilian population was not an intrinsic, inextricable part of the proximate intention. Why not?

Because, if the Japanese command, materiels, and troop concentration had been in an unpopulated region hundreds of miles out in the wilderness, the object would have been the same: to neutralize the Japanese comman, materiels, and troop concentration by bombing them with atomic ordinance. But the harm to the civilian population would have been non-existent.

If harming the civilian population was not an intrinsic, inextricable part of the proximate intention – and it was not – then it was a circumstantial or indirect intention.

Harming them was a direct function of their proximity to the target which was the military. In other words harming the civilian population was a variable. Changing the location of the civilian population could make a hek of a lot difference in the degree of harm to them: further out, less harm; closer in, more harm. Harming the military hub, on the other hand, was not a variable. It was a constant. Changing the location of the military hub could not make a darn bit of difference in the degree of harm to them. They could run but they could not hide.

Harming the civilian population was an intention, yes, because it was known that the Japanese command, materiels, and troop concentration was embedded in the civilian population and the decision to bomb with atomic ordinance was made nonetheless. However, as I have shown in the last paragraph, it was a circumstantial intention and, as such, could not change the nature of the object from morally good to morally evil. In this case, the circumstantial intention merely reduced the moral goodness of the object.

We can agree that harming the civilian population (in these circumstances) was not good, but I have shown that it was not morally evil. Was bombing the Japanese command, materiels, and troop concentration morally good? And was ending the Pacific War in August 1945 morally good?

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Yes, the bombing of the military hub was morally good. At the very least it was not morally evil. Why not? Because it was not murder. The commandment is Thou shalt not murder. Not Thou shalt not undertake an act of self-defence or defence of others. Not Thou shalt not undertake an act of Just War. Thou shalt not murder.

So was the object of ending the Pacific War in August 1945 morally good? It has been projected that millions (in the range of 5M) would have died that winter from cold, hunger, disease, and combat had the bombs not been dropped then – not later, then. Was there another way to stop the War? No. Given the information and resources available to the U.S. at that time in history – not this time, that time – and given the cult of no surrender in Japan: no, there was no other way to stop the Pacific War. However, was stopping the Pacific War morally good?

Japanese society at that time had a cult of ‘no surrender’ – a death cult – which was part of a revival of the Code of Bushido. American soldiers witnessed mothers with babies throwing themselves off cliffs rather than be captured. 1 in 3 POWs survived the Japanese camps as opposed to 1 in 10 under Germany. The Pacific War was, in truth, actually an extension of Japan’s undeclared War on Asia which lasted decades – decades, not years – and which saw the wholesale butchery – butchery, not killing – of innocents in the tens of millions – tens of millions, not tens of thousands.

Given the beliefs, capabilities, and history of the Japanese military, ending the Pacific War (by defeating them) in August 1945 was morally good.

The Japanese military was never never never going to stop the butchery of innocents unless they were brought to their knees by an overwhelming demonstration of military superiority. That demonstration was the atomic bomb. The Japanese knew exactly what the atomic bomb could do. They were developing their own. We beat them to it. Because we beat them to it and because we had the moral courage to make a difficult decision and then carry it out, we saved approximately 5 million lives. And that is morally good.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

PaulKorb:

Who are we to condemn the proliferation of nuclear weapons when we are the only nation to have ever used them and when we own the vast majority of them?

A rhetorical question. Nevertheless, I will answer it. We are the democratic people whose legitimately elected government has used nuclear weapons responsibly for a moral good, at least in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (The question of environmental damage due to testing is another discussion entirely.)

What constitutes ‘responsibly’? ‘Responsibly’ constitutes not harming civilian populations as a means to and end and not harming civilian populations for the saking of harming them. The collateral damage to the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was neither a means to the end nor was it gratuitous violence. It was circumstantial intention and, as such, did not – could not – change the moral goodness of ending the Pacific War into a moral evil.

What is ‘irresponsibly’ then? Consider the advent of portable, low-yield nukes, the new guidance systems, and the threat to civilian populations in times such as these. One low-yield nuke guided to a specific military target appears in theory to be responsible use in time of war. Add four such nukes carried in rucksacks into geographically separated points along a subway and you have a firestorm.

Firestorms create high-velocity winds which increase the temperature of the fire, blow over light buildings, and suck human beings into the fire where they are vapourized. This happens on a massive scale. Low investment for high yield in cost to civilian populations as both a means to an end and as gratuitous violence. Consider the Madrid subway. Consider the London subway. Consider the subway you take to work. Which side in the WOT do you really think – in your heart of hearts – is the legitimate target for a demonstration of overwhelming military superiority for the moral good which is saving lives?

end

 

[Benedictus]

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a terribly evil action. Clearly, the Catechism condemns such things. The bombings did indiscriminately kill civilians. The vast majority of the causalties were civilians. Even if there was a good intention in dropping the Bomb, the ends don’t justify the means.

No moral theologian worth his beans defends the bombings.

Having said all this, it seems to me that, at the time, Truman didn’t really understand the nature of nuclear weapons when he ordered the bombings.

Edit: I agree with every word of Karl Keating’s E-Letter of last year on this topic.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Benedictus:

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a terribly evil action.

This is an unsupported opinion. Please provide argumentation and/or references.

Benedictus:

Clearly, the Catechism condemns such things.

I have drawn this claim into question. In fact the Catechism does not clearly condemn the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Benedictus:

The bombings did indiscriminately kill civilians.

I have demonstrated in considerable detail that, while the bombings did indeed kill civilians, they did not indiscriminately kill them.

Benedictus:

Even if there was a good intention in dropping the Bomb, the ends don’t justify the means.

I have demonstrated that the object and the proximate intention had nothing to do with the ends justifying the means.

Benedictus:

No moral theologian worth his beans defends the bombings.

An unsupported ad hominum.

Benedictus:

Having said all this, it seems to me that, at the time, Truman didn’t really understand the nature of nuclear weapons when he ordered the bombings.

While it is likely that Truman did not know in his time what we know in our time, nevertheless he understood enough to make a reasoned decision.

 

[Benedictus]

Ani Ibi:

I have demonstrated in considerable detail that, while the bombings did indeed kill civilians, they did not indiscriminately kill them.

No, you haven’t.

Read the E-Letter I cited. There’s really no possible way to justify the bombings in the context of Catholic moral theology. Karl Keating did a fine job of explaining the situation.

 

[Petertherock]

I suppose the liberals on this forum would rather had us not dropped the bombs and instead had millions and millions of more innocent civilians and also US and Japanese soldiers killed and had the war last for another 2-10 years. I suppose that would have been the best option according to the liberal nuts on this board.

No one likes dropping the atomic bombs. It’s a tragic situation but at the time there was no ther alternative to using the a-bomb that would have saved any lives.

As for other countries having the a-bomb, it is because we used it and know first hand the affects of this terrible weapon that we need to make sure these rouge dicators don’t get their hands on these weapons. The USA will only use these weapons as a last resort when no other option would result in less casualties. These other countries will use nukes as a first resort to inflict the greatest number of casualties they can,

That is what the liberals don’t understand. These other countries are terrorists. They try to make President Bush out to be a terrorist but they don’t know what a real terrorist is. Real terrorists want nothing more than to kill as many Americans and westerners as they can. If they have a nuke bomb they will use it with no questions asked. That’s why we must stop these countries from gettint these weapons at all cost.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Benedictus:

No, you haven’t.

You can’t say that I haven’t without referring to what I have written. You have not referred to what I have written. You have not supported your claims in any way, shape, or form. The only thing you have done is to point to a link. Pointing to a link is not holding up your end of the discussion.

This discussion has devolved into a listing of opinions. He said, she said.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Benedictus:

No, you haven’t.

Read the E-Letter I cited. There’s really no possible way to justify the bombings in the context of Catholic moral theology. Karl Keating did a fine job of explaining the situation.

But no one has offered a “Catholic alternative.” No one has stood up and said, “Instead of talking about what we should NOT have done, I propose to explain what we SHOULD have done – and show how it would have resulted in fewer innocent deaths.”

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

But no one has offered a “Catholic alternative.” No one has stood up and said, “Instead of talking about what we should NOT have done, I propose to explain what we SHOULD have done – and show how it would have resulted in fewer innocent deaths.”

I started a new thread asking exactly that question.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ani Ibi:

I started a new thread asking exactly that question.

I’ll go out on a limb here and say that while you will get some nibbles, no one will take up on your challenge.

It’s like the Battle of the Little Bighorn – there are those who say, “Custer’s mistake was failing to take the gatling guns he was offered.”

I’ve often challenged such people to assign a mission to those gatling guns – and never found one who knew HOW to assign them a mission.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

I’ll go out on a limb here and say that while you will get some nibbles, no one will take up on your challenge.

It’s like the Battle of the Little Bighorn – there are those who say, “Custer’s mistake was failing to take the gatling guns he was offered.”

I’ve often challenged such people to assign a mission to those gatling guns – and never found one who knew HOW to assign them a mission.

 

[amateurthomist]

See my post on Ani’s new thread. The issue is not what would result in few civilian deaths. The issue is the objective nature of the act itself. Is the act targeting civilians? If the answer is yes, then the act is intrinsically immoral according to Just War theory (Natural Law). If the answer is no, then one can take into consideration consequences of the action and try to do what is most prudent. But an intrinsically evil act, such as indiscriminate bombing of a city, is never morally permissible no matter the consequences.

 

[Karl_Keating]

Since my name has been mentioned in this thread, may I intrude on the discussion?

Vern writes,

But no one has offered a “Catholic alternative.” No one has stood up and said, “Instead of talking about what we should NOT have done, I propose to explain what we SHOULD have done – and show how it would have resulted in fewer innocent deaths.”

This presupposes that one’s task is to determine which way the war might have been ended with the fewest casualties. But that is a consequentialist way of arguing, not a Catholic way.

The Catholic way is to ask, “Among the ways we might proceed, which are moral, and which are not?” It might well be that none of the moral ways would have resulted in the fewest casualties. Many think this indeed was the case with the war in the Pacific.

I appreciate how hard it is, even for many Catholics, to think along Catholic moral lines, but that is what we must do. We must be rigorous with ourselves.

I do not need to recapitulate here the arguments against droppng the Bomb that I used elsewhere. Just let me say that when I was young the use of the Bomb seemed more or less justified to me, but when I was young I tended to mimic what was said by people I respected, and I had not thought things through for myself or with the mind of the Church.

I learned later that while those people still were worthy of respect, on some things they had not done their moral calculus.

Petertherock writes,

I suppose the liberals on this forum would rather had us not dropped the bombs and instead had millions and millions of more innocent civilians and also US and Japanese soldiers killed and had the war last for another 2-10 years. I suppose that would have been the best option according to the liberal nuts on this board.

I don’t think I ever have been accused of being a liberal, and even in my wildest college days I was never further left than the middle of the spectrum. In the decades since I have moved even further from liberalism–perhaps much more so than you have, Peter. To my mind, for example, George Bush does not qualify as a political conservative, and Ronald Reagan qualified as one only marginally.

You do the “liberal nuts” on this forum (by your lights I count as one) no service–and yourself no service–when you accuse them of preferring to have seen “millions and millions” of additional civilian deaths. Never have I heard anybody say such a thing–and neither have you.

What those “liberal nuts” argue is that we may not seek a good end (diminished casualties) through the commission of a grave sin.

 

[amateurthomist]

Karl Keating:

Since my name has been mentioned in this thread, may I intrude on the discussion?

Vern writes,

This presupposes that one’s task is to determine which way the war might have been ended with the fewest casualties. But that is a consequentialist way of arguing, not a Catholic way.

The Catholic way is to ask, “Among the ways we might proceed, which are moral, and which are not?” It might well be that none of the moral ways would have resulted in the fewest casualties. Many think this indeed was the case with the war in the Pacific.

I appreciate how hard it is, even for many Catholics, to think along Catholic moral lines, but that is what we must do. We must be rigorous with ourselves.

I do not need to recapitulate here the arguments against droppng the Bomb that I used elsewhere. Just let me say that when I was young the use of the Bomb seemed more or less justified to me, but when I was young I tended to mimic what was said by people I respected, and I had not thought things through for myself or with the mind of the Church.

I learned later that while those people still were worthy of respect, on some things they had not done their moral calculus.

Petertherock writes,

I don’t think I ever have been accused of being a liberal, and even in my wildest college days I was never further left than the middle of the spectrum. In the decades since I have moved even further from liberalism–perhaps much more so than you have, Peter. To my mind, for example, George Bush does not qualify as a political conservative, and Ronald Reagan qualified as one only marginally.

You do the “liberal nuts” on this forum (by your lights I count as one) no service–and yourself no service–when you accuse them of preferring to have seen “millions and millions” of additional civilian deaths. Never have I heard anybody say such a thing–and neither have you.

What those “liberal nuts” argue is that we may not seek a good end (diminished casualties) through the commission of a grave sin.

Mr. Keating. Thank you so much for your post. This is also what I was trying to say as well.

 

[mlchance]

Karl Keating:

This presupposes that one’s task is to determine which way the war might have been ended with the fewest casualties. But that is a consequentialist way of arguing, not a Catholic way.

The Catholic way is to ask, “Among the ways we might proceed, which are moral, and which are not?” It might well be that none of the moral ways would have resulted in the fewest casualties. Many think this indeed was the case with the war in the Pacific.

Very well put. There can be no moral justification for the bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki within Catholic thought. Arguing that the consequences of not dropping the bombs would have been X or Y isn’t the proper way to decide the morality of the actions. Consequentialism and its relative proportionalism are both errors in moral theology, and justly deserve the condemnation they’ve received by folks like John Paul II.

Even if one accepts the deeply problematic argument that President Truman and company were unaware of the enormous civilian casualties that would necessarily result from dropping an atomic bomb on a civilian population center, that would still only possibly mitigate the situation for Hiroshima. All doubts were amply removed by the time the bomber was flying over Nagasaki.

These points aside, the OP is still treading on ridiculously thin ice. Basically, his position boils down to this: Only someone who has never committed a particular sin can admonish others to avoid that sin. This is position is, in no uncertain times, a lie. It is the position of the rebellious sixteen-year-old who gets caught smoking and can only retort, “Well, you used to smoke!”

And, BTW, the U.S. is not the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons, nor is the U.S. the only nation to have ever brought harm on people with nuclear weapons. For example, France in the South Pacific comes to mind.

So:

1. Dropping the bombs on Japan during WWII was wrong.
2. It is ludicrous to say that the U.S. has no moral authority to admonish a terroristic nation like North Korea about developing nuclear weapons.
3. When condemning damage caused by using nuclear weapons, there are more nations to condemn than just the U.S.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Petertherock]

Karl Keating:

Petertherock writes,

I don’t think I ever have been accused of being a liberal, and even in my wildest college days I was never further left than the middle of the spectrum. In the decades since I have moved even further from liberalism–perhaps much more so than you have, Peter. To my mind, for example, George Bush does not qualify as a political conservative, and Ronald Reagan qualified as one only marginally.

You do the “liberal nuts” on this forum (by your lights I count as one) no service–and yourself no service–when you accuse them of preferring to have seen “millions and millions” of additional civilian deaths. Never have I heard anybody say such a thing–and neither have you.

What those “liberal nuts” argue is that we may not seek a good end (diminished casualties) through the commission of a grave sin.

Well, I am glad you aren’t a “liberal nut.” I agree with you about President Bush. He has increased government spending more than I believe Clinton did. Not all of that was because of the war on terror either. Some of President Bush’s appointments have not impressed me. I worry that his supreme court nominee is going to turn out to be another Souter (sp?) John Roberts scares me especially considering we find out he now came out in favor of gay rights. His position on abortion is shaky too.

I would have loved to seen President Bush nominate a real conservative Catholic like Judge Miguel Estrada. But that’s a discussion for a different topic.

Getting back on this topic as unfortunate as it was the attack on Japan was necasary to prevent even worse devastation to both the USA and Japan.

 

[mlchance]

Petertherock:

John Roberts scares me especially considering we find out he now came out in favor of gay rights.

Judge Roberts did no such thing: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=837544&postcount=8

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Karl Keating:

This presupposes that one’s task is to determine which way the war might have been ended with the fewest casualties. But that is a consequentialist way of arguing, not a Catholic way.

The Catholic way is to ask, “Among the ways we might proceed, which are moral, and which are not?”

These questions, you realize, are very close.

So, among the ways we might proceed, which are moral and which are not?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Karl Keating:

Since my name has been mentioned in this thread, may I intrude on the discussion?

Super.
Karl Keating:

What those “liberal nuts” argue is that we may not seek a good end (diminished casualties) through the commission of a grave sin.

By this I understand that you believe that the harming of the civilian population in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a means to an end. Correct me if I am wrong.

I do not believe the harming of the civilian population was undertaken as a means to an end because I do not believe it was directly intended. It was circumstantially intended. As I have pointed out, had the military hub been in the wildnerness, the act itself of bombing would not have changed. But the civilian population would not have been harmed.

Are you suggesting that the Catholic way is always to forego an attack if such an attack is foreseen to result in collateral damage to civilians?

If so, then the following routes are counterindicated:

1. Nuking the Japanese military in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
2. Besieging and blockading Japan.
3. Invading Japan.

What other routes were there to ending the Pacific War other than an unconditional Allied surrender? Even an unconditional Allied surrender would have produced casualties on a scale by which Hiroshima and Nagasaki would pale in contrast.

In addition to pondering the morality of what we do, we are also called to ponder the morality of what we fail to do. I really think it is contingent on us to come up with Catholic alternatives to bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic ordinance – most poignantly because we may need these alternatives in view of the situations in North Korea and Iran. And we may need them soon.